Occupy Protester has been in jail for the last three weeks for writing on the sidewal

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Getting arrested for sidewalk chalk, even if he is saying stuff like Fuck the cops, is ridiculous. It's called free speech, and free speech means allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Now if he was advocating violent acts towards cops, then get him the fuck out of our society.

Getting arrested for sidewalk chalk, even if he is saying stuff like Fuck the cops, is ridiculous. It's called free speech, and free speech means allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Now if he was advocating violent acts towards cops, then get him the fuck out of our society.

They wonder why they're harassed so much.

Idiots.

Your freedom of speech does not mean that I have to put up with your graffiti. The city has an ordinance against writing things on the sidewalk. That's everyone's sidewalk, not just yours to write on. If you want to make a sign and carry it around on that sidewalk, fine, but you don't have some Constitutionally-protected right to deface the sidewalk that belongs partially to me, even if it is something non-permanent like chalk.

Your freedom of speech does not mean that I have to put up with your graffiti. .

I might have to disagree with you here. In CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT the Supreme Court ruled that a city could prohibit and remove temporary signs, even those with political speech, as long as the content neutral law was applied across the board to all similar signs regardless of message.

So the question is if the city prohibits the use of chalk on a sidewalk under all circumstances. Given that it's unlikely that any child has been arrested for drawing a grid for hopscotch, and we have not heard of the city prosecuting a store for having sidewalk art, then we can reasonably suspect that this law is not being universally enforced, and would therefore run afoul of the protection of the government in CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT.

The affidavit says that this was explained to Osmar multiple times, but that he disregarded the warning and continued to write on the ground.

In other words, he wanted to get arrested.

He may well have wanted to get arrested, but it doesn't change the legality of the city's action. If the city isn't prosecuting all sidewalk chalkers, then they are being selective on content, and that is a no-no.

I might have to disagree with you here. In CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT the Supreme Court ruled that a city could prohibit and remove temporary signs, even those with political speech, as long as the content neutral law was applied across the board to all similar signs regardless of message.

So the question is if the city prohibits the use of chalk on a sidewalk under all circumstances. Given that it's unlikely that any child has been arrested for drawing a grid for hopscotch, and we have not heard of the city prosecuting a store for having sidewalk art, then we can reasonably suspect that this law is not being universally enforced, and would therefore run afoul of the protection of the government in CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT.

Find any polyps?

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

Remember the nasty question I borrowed from Tony Soprano? I agreed not to use it here again and I won't despite the level of stupid and nasty you choose to revert to on a regular basis. Howbeit, consider it implied.